A Yale-led team of astronomers found a third galaxy devoid of dark matter — located alongside the other two in a formation that has never been seen before.
Note that it’s always good to keep in mind that “dark matter” is a scientific hypothesis at best, and really just a placeholder for trying to quantify some form of mass / effect that can’t be directly observed.
I love the black hole angle, though, especially as a bit of a Kurzgesagt fan.
Indeed, this one is probably the most fascinating hypotheses I’ve ever heard when it comes to cosmology:
Even though wikipedia calls dark matter an hypothesis it really isn’t. Dark matter is the observation, we see the gravitational effects of something that doesn’t seems to be there, mainly galaxies spinning faster than they should and light bending around clusters of galaxies more than it would bend otherwise.
I want to hear you say that at one of the conferences/meetings of scientists I could witness live.
Some would tell you “yeah that’s obvious, we just need to look in these and those parameter spaces to find out!”
While others would tell you you are blinded by glory or whatever and cannot accept that we do not understand gravity because we think there’s mass there but really it’s just another correction term.
And some would spin off wildly into other directions…
So yes we have observed an effect and dark matter is a possible solution. But it’s not the consensus name for the effect as there are many camps which simply do not need matter (neither dark nor any other kind) as an explanation.
It can’t be a direct observation, as “dark matter” is simply a made-up term to describe something we only have a partial understanding of. A direct observation might be particles, waves, matter, and things which exist within the framework of known science and laws of nature.
Yes, I’m only a layperson, but I think science is pretty clear about that kind of thing.
EDIT: And yes, WP is of course written by volunteers, but it’s also sourced from actual science papers. If you’re trying to rebut something in a WP article, the way to do so would be going to the paper(s) in question and building a counterargument there.
Of course it is not a direct observation, if it were it would be called something else and the conversations would never had started.
Dark matter is more like a list of problems, observations that don’t correspond with our understanding of the universe. It is dark because we can’t anything causing them, and matter because it seems to be way too little mass for the gravitation effects we see.
The cool thing with this is if there are infinite universes where the laws of physics can vary, it could mean that every single fictional story within that range of laws of physics actually happened/is happening/will happen somewhere.
Like you can make up whatever story as long as it’s consistent and it will also be real. Though that “consistent” part might rule out a lot of stories involving lazy writing (though I suppose it depends on what kind of inconsistency it is… Like character trait inconsistency is possible but “laws of physics work differently based on what the plot needs” not so much).
Funny… as a long-time graphic novel reviewer, my attitude towards ‘reality’ has shifted a lot over the years, and at this point I’m willing to entertain pretty much any unfamiliar (read “crazy”) story premise, as long as that world has an internal consistency.
So the story and setting might as well be set inside another universe (or black hole), with its own differing set of natural laws, but for me it has to live up to that premise, and not take any shortcuts along the way just because it’s ‘exotic.’ For me, you’re not allowed to cheat like that, but of course, some try to!
Yeah, anytime a story needs to answer a question with “it’s just a story, don’t think about it too much”, I lose respect for it. They can still be fun to watch, but they just aren’t on the level of ones that think everything through. It often feels like writers/producers phoning it in because they don’t really care that much.
Note that it’s always good to keep in mind that “dark matter” is a scientific hypothesis at best, and really just a placeholder for trying to quantify some form of mass / effect that can’t be directly observed.
I love the black hole angle, though, especially as a bit of a Kurzgesagt fan.
Indeed, this one is probably the most fascinating hypotheses I’ve ever heard when it comes to cosmology:
This Black Hole Could be Bigger Than The Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71eUes30gwc
(raise your hand and wave it around if you’re cool with living inside a black hole!)
Even though wikipedia calls dark matter an hypothesis it really isn’t. Dark matter is the observation, we see the gravitational effects of something that doesn’t seems to be there, mainly galaxies spinning faster than they should and light bending around clusters of galaxies more than it would bend otherwise.
I want to hear you say that at one of the conferences/meetings of scientists I could witness live.
Some would tell you “yeah that’s obvious, we just need to look in these and those parameter spaces to find out!”
While others would tell you you are blinded by glory or whatever and cannot accept that we do not understand gravity because we think there’s mass there but really it’s just another correction term.
And some would spin off wildly into other directions…
So yes we have observed an effect and dark matter is a possible solution. But it’s not the consensus name for the effect as there are many camps which simply do not need matter (neither dark nor any other kind) as an explanation.
It can’t be a direct observation, as “dark matter” is simply a made-up term to describe something we only have a partial understanding of. A direct observation might be particles, waves, matter, and things which exist within the framework of known science and laws of nature.
Yes, I’m only a layperson, but I think science is pretty clear about that kind of thing.
EDIT: And yes, WP is of course written by volunteers, but it’s also sourced from actual science papers. If you’re trying to rebut something in a WP article, the way to do so would be going to the paper(s) in question and building a counterargument there.
Of course it is not a direct observation, if it were it would be called something else and the conversations would never had started.
Dark matter is more like a list of problems, observations that don’t correspond with our understanding of the universe. It is dark because we can’t anything causing them, and matter because it seems to be way too little mass for the gravitation effects we see.
That sounds more or less correct to me.
My quibble with your original comment is of course, unchanged, and I’m perfectly happy confining myself to the majority science POV on dark matter.
The cool thing with this is if there are infinite universes where the laws of physics can vary, it could mean that every single fictional story within that range of laws of physics actually happened/is happening/will happen somewhere.
Like you can make up whatever story as long as it’s consistent and it will also be real. Though that “consistent” part might rule out a lot of stories involving lazy writing (though I suppose it depends on what kind of inconsistency it is… Like character trait inconsistency is possible but “laws of physics work differently based on what the plot needs” not so much).
Funny… as a long-time graphic novel reviewer, my attitude towards ‘reality’ has shifted a lot over the years, and at this point I’m willing to entertain pretty much any unfamiliar (read “crazy”) story premise, as long as that world has an internal consistency.
So the story and setting might as well be set inside another universe (or black hole), with its own differing set of natural laws, but for me it has to live up to that premise, and not take any shortcuts along the way just because it’s ‘exotic.’ For me, you’re not allowed to cheat like that, but of course, some try to!
Yeah, anytime a story needs to answer a question with “it’s just a story, don’t think about it too much”, I lose respect for it. They can still be fun to watch, but they just aren’t on the level of ones that think everything through. It often feels like writers/producers phoning it in because they don’t really care that much.
Part of why authors like Tolkien are so ding-dong-diddly impressive.
I’m turning NedFlanders
I think I’m turning NedFlanders
I really think so